Mandatory vaccinations vs. right to choose

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Thursday, December 7, 2006 07:56
VIEWED: 21145
PAGE 12 of 21

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, November 27, 2006 9:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
to the point of making it invisible. So instead of a deadly epidemic, you have an annoying one.

Yes, it appears so. And hooray for that benefit. However, the point is this: in these situations, while vaccines appear to protect against symptoms, they do not appear to protect against infection or infectiousness. All these people with subclinical disease are silent carriers who are not taking any "civic duty" precautions (speaking of typhoid Mary...).

So why should unvaccinated children be prevented from attending school when it is entirely allowable for vaccinated schoolchildren to spread the disease around in blissful ignorance? Why are unvaccinated children singled out as public health threats and and blamed for standing in the way of eradication, when vaccines are not even preventing infection and transmission?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
When a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.
--Henry David Thoreau, On Civil Disobedience

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, November 27, 2006 9:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
If you make the choice to vaccinate your child and that vaccination turns out to cause Autism then you can sue the manufacturer of that vaccination not only for the cost of your child's care, but also damages. The company would have to foot the bill for negative side effects resulting from their own actions and choices.

But you can't. Pharmaceutical companies are legally immune from liability in the United States. People who suffer from adverse reactions have to apply to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and be denied first by them, before being allowed to sue. And then it is still extremely difficult to sue. This program was created to keep vaccine manufacturers from going out of business because of the burden of lawsuits.

Here's the kicker. The government holds up cases for years and years before actually denying them. Long enough for lawyers to get fed up and drop the case. I watched a Subcommittee hearing on the compensation program once. Here is one of the testimonies presented.

A father takes her 5 year old to get her shots before starting school. Pediatrician says the shots might make her sleepy. Sure enough, she fell asleep in the car on the way home. Expecting this, the dad wasn't worried. The kid never woke up, and died 4 hours later.

If that wasn't horrendous enough, the NVICP denies this case for 10 years before awarding the parent some measly amount of money. Now you have death here, not just autism, occuring FOUR freaking hours after the vaccination, and authorities still insisted it wasn't the vaccine that killed her. How likely is it for a child who developed autism weeks after a vaccination to get awarded any kind of compensation?

No, most vaccine injuries do not get reported, let alone compensated. You get the unlucky shot out of that Russian Roulette, you pay for it. I have not heard of a successful lawsuit against a pharm giant since the establishment of the NVICP in 1986. Those corporations can't be touched--not when it comes to vaccines. So how many lawyers do you think actually devote any expertise to this field?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day.
--Henry David Thoreau, On Civil Disobedience

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, November 27, 2006 9:32 PM

Quote:
All I've been so far is pigeon-holed by Frem as some sort of jack booted Nazi-Lemming for daring, DARING to say perhaps people should take responsibility for their choices.

No, You got lambasted for saying that people should NOT have a choice.
You know, that little word... "Mandatory" ?
I'm all about choices and responsibility, it's when folks wanna take that choice away and STILL stick me with the responsibility and fallout that I get pissed.

Quote:
If you make the choice to vaccinate your child and that vaccination turns out to cause Autism then you can sue the manufacturer of that vaccination not only for the cost of your child's care, but also damages.

No, you cannot, therein lies the problem.
Big Pharma, with the collusion of our lawmakers, keeps sliding provisions into other bills to PREVENT exactly this.
(Google: Eli Lilly Protection Act)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Homeland_and_Lilly_Prot
ection_Act
Which was, thankfully, repealed.

And this is only one of a couple that have been slipped in here and there at the bottom of other bills, in essence to deny that recourse.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1999/aug99/99-08-25.html

If someone makes a choice, and it *IS* a choice, financial and other responsibility falls to them, no one is saying otherwise, but what is being pushed here - is the idea that people should NOT have a choice, and when that decision is forced upon them, should ALSO not have one whit of recourse if the results of that decision are harmful.

So in essence I take pretty severe issue at the idea that some folk would like to legally mandate Big Pharma forcing possibly dangerous vaccinations on people, and on top of that be absolved of all responsibility for damages if/when harm comes to those it is forced upon.

Am I the only one who sees red flags all over that particular assessment of the situation, given the past and present behavior of the principals involved ?

-Frem

Also: Interesting Article Linkage
http://www.westonaprice.org/children/vaccinations.html
Very plain english, very thought provoking, regardless of stance.
Also some data about the SV40 Fiasco involving oral polio vacc

CHRISISALL

Monday, November 27, 2006 9:59 PM

I use the one-third approach:
One third of the peeps I come in contact with are idiots.
One third of the doctors I have had dealings with are idiots.
So, in general, I figure one third of the vaccines out there are unsafe and/or unnecessary.

Not too scientific, I admit. And distinguishing the good 2/3 from the bad 1/3 is the hard and highly debateable part.

On a personel level, paid medical advice says I should have swollen knees, non-working hips, fused cervical bones, and a general inability to walk well.
But I climb mountains and do Kung-Fu...
Forgive me if I don't have a whole lotta faith in 'scientific' method.

Un-limited Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Monday, November 27, 2006 10:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

So in essence I take pretty severe issue at the idea that some folk would like to legally mandate Big Pharma forcing possibly dangerous vaccinations on people, and on top of that be absolved of all responsibility for damages if/when harm comes to those it is forced upon.

Am I the only one who sees red flags all over that particular assessment of the situation, given the past and present behavior of the principals involved ?

Nope.

Rabble-rouser Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Monday, November 27, 2006 10:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
No, You got lambasted for saying that people should NOT have a choice.

Like I said, you didn't read my post, because you don't care what I had to say (as you yourself have admitted) so you just responded without reading it. Something evident by the fact you are under the dellusion that I used the word mandatory, I'm fairly sure that word appears for the first time written by me in this post. You lambasted me because you decided what you wanted me to say and how you wanted to respond, the fact that that had little to do with reality is your problem not mine.

Quote:
No, you cannot, therein lies the problem.
Big Pharma, with the collusion of our lawmakers, keeps sliding provisions into other bills to PREVENT exactly this.

Both you and CTS make the same assertion, so I'll answer it here:
Just because your system doesn't work doesn't mean no system works. Nor does it mean that by extension vaccinations are wrong.

Just because your government is more interested in protecting big buisness than ordinary citizens doesn't mean that is always how it works nor that all governments are like that.

Quote:
If someone makes a choice, and it *IS* a choice, financial and other responsibility falls to them, no one is saying otherwise, but what is being pushed here - is the idea that people should NOT have a choice, and when that decision is forced upon them, should ALSO not have one whit of recourse if the results of that decision are harmful.

Then talk to the people pushing that view. Don't spit in my face for other peoples views.

Maybe you can quote the posts here where I said you should be tied to a table and injected with whatever the man sees fit?

Quote:
and on top of that be absolved of all responsibility for damages if/when harm comes to those it is forced upon.

Where does anyone say this?

Quote:
Am I the only one who sees red flags all over that particular assessment of the situation, given the past and present behavior of the principals involved ?

Yes, the red flag that you are so disinterested in what anyone else has to say you haven't read any of it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, November 27, 2006 10:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So what is it about vaccines that "bug" you (so to speak) so much? Is it mercury? The fact that they're bunched up? Given early? The media that they're grown on? The potential for "tag-along" viruses? The fact that big pharmas control their production? None of the above? All of the above? Something else?

All of the above and more, and personal experience.

There is a position that can be defended by scientific standards, and then there is my personal opinion.

I go to a restaurant and come out vomiting. I go there the next week and come out vomiting. Now by scientific standards, I cannot prove by that correlation alone, that the restaurant food is the cause of my vomiting. But I can hold a personal opinion that something's not right with that restaurant, and I don't want to eat there again.

There is no good research that conclusively proves, by scientific standards, that vaccines are highly effective or highly safe for the vast majority of recipients. That is a position I can defend as a scientist. I have not said anything AGAINST vaccines, but have only raised questions about vaccine dogma. And yet questions themselves are seen as anti-vaccine.

I used to hang with a Christian fundamentalist group. Then I started asking questions challenging dogma. QUESTIONS, mind you. These questions were so threatening to them that they excommunicated me for heresy. I did not know questions could be heretical.

In the 20 years since, I have come across this type of reaction only once more: when I started participating in vaccine choice activism in my real life. I raise questions challenging dogma, which are automatically perceived as anti-vaccine. Vaccine heresy, if you will.

My husband and I suffered injuries shortly following vaccinations. I suffered the most I had ever endured in my life. We can't prove the vaccines did it, and we never reported it. All we want is to not eat at that restaurant anymore, and not take chances with our children having to suffer what we suffered.

And yet that choice is seen as anti-restaurant. A true anti-restaurant position would be trying to shut it down so NO ONE can eat there. We aren't doing that, trying to force our opinions on anyone else. You like the restaurant, YOU have fun there. Allow us the same freedom to eat where we like.

It's about boundaries, boundaries between your body and mine. People want to have control over my body under the argument that my body threatens their bodies. It is a pretext to blur and cross boundaries. I am vehemently anti-boundary crossing. I don't much care if you think I am stupid or ignorant or selfish, as long as you leave my body (and the bodies of my kids) alone. You just can't own other people, or even a part of other people. It's the principle of the thing. That is why, though I am personally anti-abortion, I am politically pro-choice. You leave people's bodies alone.

If I were anti-vaccine, I'd be telling people not to vaccinate. I would tell people vaccines are completely ineffective and completely dangerous. A number of my anti-vaccine friends give me grief for not supporting that position. But I find that position just as scientifically indefensible as one that says vaccines are highly effective and highly safe. I have to call it as I see it. Vaccination is a complex, multifactorial issue that is far from black-and-white.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
The strongest principle of growth lies in human choice.
--George Eliot (1819 - 1880)

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, November 27, 2006 10:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Forgive me if I don't have a whole lotta faith in 'scientific' method.

Just so you know, the failures of medical advice have nothing to do with science. It has to do with power and money and tradition.

Besides, science is not a good match for medicine or healing. Science takes eons to come to a conclusion, and then it is time for a new paradigm. Patients can't wait that long, so doctors make things up and call it science (gives consumers confidence). But it really isn't science, and shouldn't be. Healing should be an art and discipline, based on clinical experience and compassion.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
At first there was nothing. Then God said 'Let there be light!' Then there was still nothing. But you could see it.
--Source unknown

CHRISISALL

Monday, November 27, 2006 10:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Healing should be an art and discipline, based on clinical experience and compassion.

Yup.

And Vulcan mysticism

-just kiddin'-Chrisisall

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, November 27, 2006 10:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You're trying to show that 1) no vaccine works well, if at all and 2) vaccination risk is just as high, if not higher, than the disease.

All I have shown is reasonable doubt about the veracity of the vaccine mantra: The benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks.

Here's MY mantra. Read my lips. Vaccination is a complex, multifactorial issue that is not black-and-white.

Quote:
Your whole argument is geared to making YOU feel blameless for anything bad that might happen.

Are your arguments against religion designed to make you feel blameless for not believing in God, in case you go to hell?

Quote:
In other words - you are anti-vaccination. Period.

If I were anti-vaccination, I would not be arguing for prochoice including the choice to vaccinate. I would be arguing for the end to all vaccines, including your right to have one. Do anti-abortionists encourage you to make your own choice to abort or not?

Quote:
But surveillance indicates a very low rate of non-polio AFP. ...but the fact is there was very little non-polio paralysis.

Yes, I have already addressed the point that there IS very little AFP in recent decades. Do we know how much non-polio AFP existed from 1948 - 1957? No, because until 1955, they were sort of all lumped together.

Quote:
because you can't.

That's right. I can't. Because no one knows. That's my point. We don't have enough information to judge EXACTLY how effective the polio vaccine is because the few facts we have are confounded by all sorts of factors. As I keep saying, vaccination is a complex, multifactorial issue that is not black-and-white. Om.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.
--Bertrand Russell

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE